Inspect Iraq, Don't Attack
Bush and others lied when they claimed Iraq had WMDs, Iraq posed a threat to the
USA, and Iraq posed a threat to its neighbors. The real threat is from al Qaeda
and other terrorists who Bush is helping by attacking and occupying Iraq. The
real threat is from loose nukes and rogue states Bush is ignoring. Oddly, some
Americans - even those with loved ones and friends at risk in Iraq - blame me
and the rest of us who are trying to SAVE American troops from dying because of
Bush's lying. As Americans kill and die in Iraq, Osama bin Laden remains at
large and Bush claims this is not a major concern. Of course bin Laden attacked
us on 9/11 - and Iraq had nothing to do with that. Iraq never attacked us.
As Tim Russert reported on Meet The Press: "In 2003, Osama bin Laden
sought and received a religious ruling or fatwa from a radical Saudi cleric
authorizing the use of a nuclear bomb against U.S. civilians as permissible
under Islamic law. The ruling concluded that their use would be mandatory if it
were the only way to stop U.S. actions against Muslims. 'If a bomb that killed
10 million of them and burned as much of their land as they have burned Muslims'
land were dropped on them, it would be permissible,' the ruling concluded."
In response, Republican Senator Richard Lugar warned: "[T]here are a
number of young people in life now who are prepared to commit suicide. Whether
they are people in madrassa schools in Pakistan, quite apart from al-Qaeda - in
other words, a different psychology, like the 9/11 people who went into the
Trade Center. Now, because of this, we need two more things we haven't discussed
today: better intelligence. And this means a lot of meshing of gears with every
country, with the Germans, with the French, with the Russians, so that even if
Osama has these objectives and there are even instruments, these suicidal young
people, they can still be stopped if we know where they are, where they're
coming from." See: NBC News' Meet
The Press May 29, 2005.
During their appearance on NBC's "Meet the
Press" program the co-chairs Bush appointed to run the 9/11 Commission - Thomas
H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton- as well as Senator Richard Lugar, Republican former
Senator Fred Thompson and former Senator Sam Nunn - a defense expert - all
confirmed Iraq was not a threat to the US, and the occupation there distracts
from and undermines attempts to address the single greatest threat. They
identified the Bush Administration's failure as a dire threat to Americans.
Host Tim Russert quoted from the September 11th commission report: "A
nuclear bomb can be built with a relatively small amount of nuclear material. A
trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium
about the size of a grapefruit or an orange, together with commercially
available material, could fashion a nuclear device that would fit into a van
like the one Ramzi Yousef parked in the garage of the World Trade Center in
1993. Such a bomb would level Lower Manhattan."
Former Senator Thompson
conceded, "We can do a lot better than what we're doing. But you can tell from
that that it is a tremendous challenge to keep that small a quantity of material
of any kind from crossing our borders. We've got to do a much better job because
the consequences of this particular action would be so devastating if it
occurred." This is from a Republican. Another Republican, 9/11 Commission
Chairman Kean confirmed Bush's failure to protect us from nuclear terrorist
attacks: "we've had something, evidently it didn't work very well, that we spent
a lot of money on. So we're going to try again, and we're working on it. In
addition, we're working, of course, on border security, but we've got very long
borders on both our sides, plus the container ports. And it is very, very
difficult, will take a long time. And that's why Nunn-Lugar is so very
important. If we don't get this stuff at the source, if we don't lock it down,
once it's escaped from those sources, once it's away and moving around the
world, it's going to be very hard to stop."
Russert quoted the
Robb-Silverman Commission which Bush appointed as warning, "The intelligence
community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the
world's most dangerous actors, including Iran and North Korea. In some cases, it
knows less now than it did five or 10 years ago." In response, all the experts
on the show agreed that Bush is not dealing with this most serious threat to
American lives: an alliance between nuclear North Korea and al Qaeda or
terrorists gaining access to "loose nukes."
Sen. Thompson confirmed,
"These loose nukes and so forth have been around. The destruction they could do
to an American city - that threat has been there for a while. What has changed
now is the number of people who are willing to carry out an operation to use
those weapons. So you have the addition of the suicidal terrorists, plus the new
nation-states, rogue nations, if you will, that are clearly developing the
similar capabilities. So it's - we're just in the very, very beginning, in terms
of attention, in terms of need for leadership, in terms of money in this nation
in addressing this problem, which surpasses all the other problems that we think
we have in this country." Bush's continued occupation of Iraq is wasting
hundreds of $billions and alienating allies we need to prevent nuclear attacks
on American cities.
Thompson calls an alliance between North Korea and
al-Qaeda "realistic" and explains, "The nation-state developments - it takes a
country, basically, to have the infrastructure to really develop these things,
and so any kind of nation-state that has that capability and alliance with a
terrorist organization is the ultimate threat, seems to me, and very realistic
one." Republican 9/11 Commissioner and former New Jersey Governor Kean adds, "I
believe that, and we talked to nobody who had studied this issue who didn't
think it was a real possibility. And if we don't perhaps head Lincoln's advice
and, at this point, think anew and act anew, I worry very seriously."
His co-chair, former Representative Hamilton confirmed, "Oh, yes, I
think it's a distinct possibility" and warned "terrorism is spreading; radical
Islam is spreading. You've got an explosive mix here." Senator Nunn agreed,
saying "I think, though, that the message ought to be: It is certainly possible,
but it is also preventable. There are a lot of things we can do that we have not
done." NBC News' Meet The Press
May 29, 2005
There it is. The biggest threat to American people
remains terrorists using nuclear weapons, and Bush refuses to do what must be
done to protect us. Instead, Bush ignores and exacerbates these threats. He
offends and refuses to cooperate with our allies. He is afraid to engage North
Korea directly but provokes and threatens them instead. Rather than fix the
several disastrous intelligence failures confirmed by various commissions he
appointed, Bush rewards those who continue to deliver flawed and false
intelligence.
The risk of mushroom clouds over American cities continues
to grow while Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice and others neglect the highest
priorities and keep squandering American lives and scarce resources. Bush
occupies harmless Iraq while the real threat - bin Laden - remains free to plot
nuclear attacks against us. Bush's lies and failures to confront the real
dangers present is the real threat to American lives. Iraq is not.
Bush's and Cheney's lies are costing us $billions and even worse the
lives of brave Americans. The Duelfer Report clearly stated that Saddam had no
weapons of mass destruction when Bush attacked. None. Here are the facts: Iraq
had no WMDs, Iraq posed no threat to us, and the Bush Administration knew this
long before invading Iraq. Remember, Bush never claimed we had to attack Iraq
because Saddam had "plans" to start "programs" to get weapons. Bush and others
claimed that Saddam already had and could use WMDs in a matter of minutes to
attack America. Those claims were lies, and these lies were the entire basis for
Bush's demands that we attack Iraq. Bush lied about that, and the Duelfer Report
confirmed Bush lied. Nothing Bush did or does in Iraq made, makes, or will make
America any safer.
As CNN reported "Saddam Hussein did not possess
stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and
had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. In fact, the
long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of
central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially
destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf
War." CNN noted " The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that
President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that
Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons"
and "is seeking nuclear weapons."
As "Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan,
ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200
potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed. 'It is important to emphasize
that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against
Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction
to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11,' Levin said."
See: Report: No WMD
stockpiles in Iraq, CNN, October 7, 2004.
Bush shows his disdain for
truth and accountability when he rewards those who misstated Iraqi weapons
capabilities. The Associated Press' Walter Pincus reports: "Despite sharp
critiques from the president's commission and the Senate intelligence committee,
no major reprimand or penalty has been announced publicly in connection with the
intelligence failures, though investigations are still underway at the CIA.
George J. Tenet resigned as CIA director but was later awarded the Medal of
Freedom by Bush. The president's commission urged the Bush administration to
consider taking action against the agencies, and perhaps the individuals,
responsible for the most serious errors in assessing Iraq's weapons program.
CNN added: "Richard Ben-Veniste, who was a member of the Sept. 11
commission and whose government experience goes back to service as a Watergate
prosecutor, said it is important for the administration to hold the intelligence
community accountable for mistakes. 'It matters whether it was carelessness or
tailoring [of intelligence], whether it was based on perceived wants of an
administration or overt requests ... It is time now to demonstrate the need for
the integrity of the process,' Ben-Veniste said. In its report, the commission,
chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator
Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said 'reform requires more than changing the
community's systems: it also requires accountability.'" See: Analysts
Behind Bad Iraq Intelligence Were Rewarded, Walter Pincus, Associated Press
May, 28 2005.
But Bush relies on lies and blocks accountability. After
even Bush's own investigators confirmed that US claims about Iraq's WMD were
dead wrong, he supports and repeats known falsehoods - lies. How can anyone
still claim there were WMDs in Iraq? Charles Duelfer - upon whom you rely -
confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq. The CIA admitted there were none. The 9/11
Commission admitted there were none. No one has found any despite extensive
searching. Anyone who denies the known facts and repeats Bush Administration
lies sacrifices their credibility in favor of a failed ideology. Or to be blunt
- whoever claims Iraq had WMDs is lying to support a known liar - namely George
W. Bush.
People allege close cooperation between Saddam and bin Laden.
Suppose those men were best friends rather than mortal enemies, where is any
sign of any cooperation between them? There is no question who masterminded the
9/11 and who still represents the real threat to the USA - it is and was bin
Laden and al Qaeda, not Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
had closer ties with Iraq and Saddam than bin Laden ever did.
There's no
reason to think Saddam and bin Laden ever met or did business, yet we know
Rumsfeld and Cheney both helped Iraq. So why attack Iraq and let bin Laden go
free? The attack on Iraq took personnel and equipment away from the effort
against al Qaeda. Bush squandered hundreds of $BILLIONS we don't have as well as
some 1600 American lives, and 100,000 Iraqis for a lie. And counting. All this
instead of destroying bin Laden and al Qaeda or even making that his top effort.
Anyone who claims the opposite is just ignorant or lying.
Bush's lies
about Iraq - which only a few still believe - and his illegal invasion of Iraq
have made us less safe. Where is bin Laden? Bush promised to bring back this
monster dead or alive then said he doesn't think about bin Laden that much. Bush
lied. That made us much less safe. There is no serious question about this from
any thinking person. If that's not enough, let's test the supposed benefits from
this war. Terrorism around the world is way UP. So much so that the State Dept.
no longer publishes the figures after they were caught LYING when they claimed
terrorism was down. Our troops are DYING in Iraq as they're killing Iraqis by
the 10,000s most of them innocent. Our world standing is way DOWN. Our allies
know Bush is lying. Our enemies celebrate our waste of lives and resources in
the Iraquagmire. Iraq is in civil war, and it's likely bin Laden's friends and
supporters will win.
Terrorists are getting more recruits while our
military is forced to lie to young people trying in vain to meet recruitment
needs, and the Pentagon has to keep troops in combat far longer than is wise or
safe - or legal. These are not opinions. These are all 100% proven facts. As for
the unfounded claims you repeat, they don't pass the laugh test. For example, if
President Mubarek and King Abdullah - or Turkish leaders - felt Iraq was a
threat, then didn't any of those nations support Bush's invasion of Iraq? Why
don't they send in troops now to prevent this supposed threat on their doorstep?
Why did they all strongly oppose the invasion of Iraq? Because there was no
threat from Iraq. They knew it. The Bush Administration knew it. The latter
group chose to lie about it.
King Abdullah warns that toppling Saddam
opened the door for a regional radical Islamicist pro-terrorist "crescent" which
would destabilize Saudi Arabia, Egypt and his own Jordan. The Washington Post
reported Abdullah's concerns that "a new 'crescent' of dominant Shiite movements
or governments stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon could emerge,
alter the traditional balance of power between the two main Islamic sects and
pose new challenges to U.S. interests and allies.
The Post quotes
Abdullah's fear that "If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened
ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders
of Iraq." That represents a real threat to US interests, a dire risk only
increased by Bush's policies. "Even Saudi Arabia is not immune from this. It
would be a major problem. And then that would propel the possibility of a
Shiite-Sunni conflict even more, as you're taking it out of the borders of
Iraq," according to Abdullah. See: Iraq,
Jordan See Threat To Election From Iran, Washington Post, December 8, 2004.
People claim a Guardian article is proof that "Saddam Hussein's regime
has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist
attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons" but that was only
"according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials" - the same
people who got everything wrong from the presence of such weapons in Iraq to the
reaction of Iraqis to US invasion. The Guardian accurately reported that inept
and / or dishonest sources made inaccurate claims and predictions. There was no
such cooperation because there were no such chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons. By going back years and to rely on refuted reports, you reveal a
complete lack of current or credible evidence to refute accurate proof Bush
lied.
When our intelligence learned Bin Laden was "Determined to Strike
in US" as reported to Bush in the Presidential
Daily Briefing of August 6th 2001 Bush ignored these warnings and goofed off
in Texas. We know bin Laden attacked us soon after Bush shirked his top duty -
to protect the American people from attack. Talk is cheap. Actions cannot be
denied. By his actions, we must conclude that Bush cared far less about
defending our people from attacks inside our nation than he cared about
attacking the nation of Iraq. Of course Bush is lying about all of this and
trying to blame others for his failures while lying about his failure to protect
us from terrorism.
No one can confirm any support from Saddam to al
Qaeda. We know bin Laden never operated in Iraq, but the Taliban welcomed and
protected bin Laden in Afghanistan according to an Associated Press report:
"Despite repeated demands from Washington, the Taliban refused to hand over bin
Laden after the August 7 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,
demanding proof of his involvement in terrorist activities. However, in recent
weeks, both the United States and Britain have renewed their pressure on the
Taliban to expel bin Laden."
The AP adds: "Pakistan, a strong ally of
the Taliban and one of only three countries to recognize the movement's control
over Afghanistan, also has been asked by the United States to use its influence
to have bin Laden expelled from Afghanistan." Bush - before stealing the White
House - embraced Pakistan's terrorist-supporting, nuclear proliferating military
regime! Bad as this was, that's only part of the story.
President
Clinton dedicated himself to neutralizing bin Laden, but Republicans in the
Congress thwarted his efforts. Republican Senators like Phil Gramm blocked
legislation to freeze al Qaeda financial assets because special banking
interests told them to, and they opposed recommendations to improve airline
safety out of deference to the airline lobbyists. Still, the Democrats didn't
stop trying to keep Americans safe from terror. The Clinton Administration
warned the Taliban that America would hold them personally responsible if Osama
bin Laden attacked us. By contrast, Bush welcomed the Taliban to the White
House!
The Washington Post confirmed, "The Clinton administration
ordered the Navy to maintain two Los Angeles-class attack submarines on
permanent station in the nearest available waters, enabling the U.S. military to
place Tomahawk cruise missiles on any target in Afghanistan within about six
hours of receiving the order." See: See: The
Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks
Washington Post, December 19, 2001.
As the Washington Post reports:
"Assistant Secretary of State Michael A. Sheehan, the department's
counterterrorism coordinator, delivered the new message directly to the Taliban.
He telephoned Foreign Minister Ahmed Waqil and read him a formal declaration
known as a demarche. 'If bin Laden or any of the organizations affiliated with
him attacks the United States or United States interests,' he told Waqil, 'we
will hold you, the leadership of the Taliban, personally accountable. Do you
understand what I am saying? This is from the highest level of my government
[if] you're protecting him, you become responsible for his crimes.'"
Clinton's third-ranking State Department official Thomas Pickering "met
with Mullah Ahmed Jalil, Taliban deputy foreign minister [and] told him, as
Sheehan had told his boss, that 'people who are helping other people kill
Americans are our enemies and should consider themselves as such.'" See: Clinton's War
on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, Washington Post, December 19,
2001.
Why did Bush reverse this "get tough" policy against the Taliban,
and why did Bush reward the Taliban in the weeks and months before 9/11/01? We
know the Bush administration withdrew the Clinton safeguards, and entered into
negotiations with the Taliban to construct a pipeline. Clinton directed his
national security team to brief the incoming Bush advisors on the al Qaeda
threat. Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest pointedly ignored this. We know Bush
gave the Taliban $25 Million and withdrew the nuclear subs which threatened to
retaliate against the Taliban if al Qaeda attacked us. After Bush kissed up to
the Taliban, al Qaeda saw this as weakness and attacked us within weeks.
Bush gave more support to bin Laden (via the Taliban) than Saddam ever
did directly or indirectly. Also, Reagan, Rumsfeld, Bush I and Cheney all
supported Saddam - Cheney (via Kellogg
Brown and Root) as
recently as 1999! If Iraq was such a threat to the US, then Dick Cheney
committed treason in 1999. When you call for the arrest and prosecution of
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush's daddy and other top-level Republicans who helped
Saddam, I will credit your consternation about those of us who refute the
mythical threat from Iraq which Bush claims justified the war and all its costs
to Americans and Iraqis.
While Bush's orders kill Iraqis and get
Americans killed, he likes to walk hand-in-hand with Saudi princes. It's
well-known and widely-reported that the Saudis supported al Qaeda
more than anyone else. We know that an "Al-Qa'ida Group Headed by a Saudi
Cleric. 'I remember that the leader of the group was a Saudi cleric called
[Muhammad], who was a fervent and audacious individual and did not require much
training. He was highly skilled, and could fire accurately at a target while
riding a motorcycle. Additionally, he used to deliver fiery sermons calling for
Jihad and for fighting the Americans anywhere in the world." (see The Middle
East Media Research Institute - MEMRI)
Another MEMRI report explains:
"On April 23, 2005, Saudi newspapers reported that 40 Pakistanis were arrested
by the Saudi religious police in a Riyadh apartment for conducting Christian
religious activity." See: 40
Christians Arrested in Saudi Arabia for Religious Activity By Saudi Religious
Police: 'For Spread[ing] Poison' . By contrast, in Iraq under Saddam,
Christians could celebrate holidays and pray to Jesus. In Saudi Arabia, our
troops had to hide tiny Christmas trees in their tents during Desert Shield.
News viewers in the US recently watched your beloved champion Bush sauntering
hand-in-hand with the de facto Saudi dictator who supports this and other
anti-Christian extremism, as well as pro-terror anti-American activities far
more extensive than ever ascribed to Saddam.
Also from MEMRI: "The Saudi
daily Al-Riyadh recently published an article titled 'My Son's Teacher Was a
Terrorist,' by Badria bint Abdallah Al-Bishr, a lecturer in social sciences at
King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. She described her children's experiences in
school following September 11, 2001 and recounted her astonishment at
discovering that one of the terrorists in the December 30, 2004 car bombing of
the Saudi Interior Ministry in Riyadh had been her son's teacher. The following
are excerpts from the article: 'Mother, Did You Know that Osama bin Laden is a
Hero.'"
In shocking detail, Badria bint Abdallah Al-Bishr explains: "One
day after the events of September 11, my son, who was then in fifth grade, came
in from school. He entered my office as I was reading, [sat down and] crossed
his legs, and said to me: 'Mother, did you know that Osama bin Laden is a hero
who left the entire world behind him and went to the mountains to fight for the
sake of Allah?' 'When he saw my astonishment, he cockily shifted position,
confident that he hadn't yet finished surprising me, and asked: 'Mother, why
don't we stop [exporting] oil to America so it will surrender to our terms?' [I
replied]: 'What grave words you are saying! Watch your mouth!'" In case there's
still any question in your mind, consider that this Saudi woman reports "My Son
in Third Grade Drew Two Airplanes Blowing up in the Twin Towers" and when this
happened. "The day after the events of September 11, my other son, then in third
grade in elementary school, showed me his charming drawing, the subject of which
was: 'Draw the sight of the two airplanes blowing up the twin [towers].'" See:
Saudi
University Lecturer: My Son's Teacher Was a Terrorist.
Note: I am
not advocating war against Saudi Arabia, merely exposing the recklessness,
ridiculousness and hypocrisy of Bush's insane "yer either with us or against us"
doctrine when he attacked innocent Iraq but cuddles with the complicit Saudi
Arabian Royals. Nearly all of the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were
Saudis. Saudi-supported clerics and schools teach and preach jihad against
America. Osama bin Laden is a popular Saudi who - if Bush's blunders continue -
could become the leader of that nation. Why did Bush ignore and even embrace
incubators of al Qaeda terrorism - the Taliban and the Saudis - to wage war
against the helpless nation of Iraq? Why did Bush start to attack in
Afghanistan, then pull back and let bin Laden escape? Where is Osama bin Laden?
The facts remain, even if Bush constantly lies about all of this.
Bush
lied and still lies about his intentions and the conditions in Iraq from late
2001 up to the eve of his attack on Iraq. Iraq had no air force when Bush
attacked. Iraq had no weapons capable of striking us and no WMDs. Iraq was a
broken nation which posed no threat to its neighbors. Confirming all of this,
inspectors were combing Iraq mere days before Bush attacked. As the Downing Street minutes reveal, Bush
ignored all of these known facts and lied when he promised to exhaust all
diplomatic and non-military means to resolve the Iraq situation. Bush fit the
facts and intelligence to his premeditated decision to wage war. He lied to the
US public, the world and the Congress in order to gain support for a war he
intended to wage no matter the facts or the costs. So many lies and failures,
and now so many cover-ups. So many lives squandered and so many opportunities
wasted.
No one has to read Bush's mind to explain why Bush lied. I can
hazard guesses but why should I? We know Bush threw out his and America's
credibility, standing and reputation by lying and committing international and
war crimes. Bush and his top officials lied over and over and over. Bush's
partisans try to deny the facts, but denying facts doesn't make them go away.
For long lists of critical lies by Bush and his henchmen and henchwomen, see
books by Richard Clarke and several others. Also see: Articles on Iraq at
MikeHersh.com.
The Bush team lied several times in several ways over
several months. All their lies, rumors, finger-pointing, misquotes,
misrepresentations and BS can't change the truth. Bush supporters haven't
refuted or even argued against any of that. No matter how much they claim Bush
isn't a liar, he remains a liar. As Bush sycophants repeat his lies, they become
liars as well. All for nothing but death and destruction.
Here's the
truth: Bush lied us into war. Nothing supports the massive waste of American and
Iraqi lives and hundreds of $billions of tax dollars in an illegal, needless
war. Nothing anyone can claim justifies any of it. I hope the families who have
loved-ones in Iraq won't suffer as Cindy Sheehan suffers from the loss of
her son Casey. I saw her speak about this last Thursday afternoon at the
hearings Rep. John Conyers called. I saw her speak again that evening, and her
compelling testimony establishes the case for impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rice,
Rumsfeld and others who lied us into war and catastrophe.
I hope it
doesn't take the loss of a loved one before Bush supporters open their eyes and
ears to see the truth of Cindy Sheehan's sworn testimony. I really
hope their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters don't suffer the same fate
as Casey Sheehan or the other 1700+ Americans killed and the several 1000s
injured for Bush's lies. I urge you to speak out and act now to end the illegal
occupation of Iraq before more Americans and Iraqis die for Bush's lies. Lives
depend on your telling the truth.
Get and wear this picture as a shirt, button, etc.
Click on the picture to get this and other designs. Speak out to let the world
know you don't support war for oil. If we don't speak out, the Bush war machine
will continue the occupation of Iraq until they attack Iran.
© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com
and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast
any material at this site, provided you identify the source as
MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts
or other written reproductions must
include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.
|
